On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 03/04/2014 06:43 PM, Linus Walleij wrote: >> If I understand the situation correctly it's like ACPI does not have named >> GPIOs so keeping specifying this in DT GPIO bindings is counter-productive >> to the work of abstracting the access to GPIO handlers so that drivers >> need not know whether ACPI or DT is used for describing the hardware. > > For devices that already have both ACPI and DT bindings, we can't > pretend they can be the same; they are already potentially different. We > simply need to parse DT and ACPI differently, since that's the sway > their bindings are defined. > > For any devices that don't have both ACPI and DT bindings, I agree we > should certainly strive to make any new bindings aligned so we don't > have to deal with this for them. > > However, we can't change the past. Yeah, right, so for this very driver there are no bindings defined (yet) and the only device tree I can find referencing it is the Tegra20-paz00 and it just use gpios = <>; So in this case I think this patch is the right way forward, but I admit I'm really uncertain in the general case. Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
